|
Okay, that’s fair. Not pointless.
Yet, if you can get equally good performance from CGIDEV2 and COBOL, or
from XMLSERVICE wrappers and CGI, then why would RPG or COBOL developers
want to go through the hassle of learning asynchronous programming with
JavaScript and node? What do they gain from using node?
And, if node on the IBM i does not perform better than CGI under
conditions of very high concurrency, then that may become an argument for
running node on servers other than IBM i.
That’s the sentiment behind my statement. I was wrong to say it was
pointless. But the attraction of node to many large companies is its
performance under conditions of very high concurrency. These companies
could have chosen CGI options. They didn’t. They chose node. If the
performance potential of node on the IBM i has been reduced to being the
same as CGI, that really undercuts what many companies are looking for in
node.
Thanks,
Kelly Cookson
IT Project Leader
Dot Foods, Inc.
217-773-4486 ext. 12676
www.dotfoods.com<http://www.dotfoods.com>
--
This is the Web Enabling the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (WEB400) mailing
list
To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400
or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at https://archive.midrange.com/web400.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.